Project Reality Forums

is it me or do firefights end to quick ? i mean i see on news and documentaries firefights going on for hours and like 4/5 people killed or wounded yet on PR firefights r over in seconds with like 6 ppl or more dead ? and in like a hour battle 150/200 on one team! depending on the lvl , now i dont know how to slow this down or if there is a need i just wanted to see if u feel the same ? and if so mabye we could think some ideas up.

discuss please .


i know the speed of the people has been discussed but dont think the actull firefights have.

Its the BF2 playing style. Where you can sprint and jump over walls and the spray the enemy dead in seconds. If you die you spawn in 30 sec.

On the documentaries, they wouldn't do that (too rsisky).

they are over too quick in arma too, even though arma is very realistic. i dont think fear for your life can be modeled in a video game.

IRL engagements take place at much longer ranges than in PR plus in pr weapons are very stable so you can easily get your shots off at an enemy nearly instantly after you see him. and IRL you don't get noobs running forwards blindly only to get killed seconds after, chopper pilots don't drop you inthe middle of street whilst under fire,...
you could find thousands of reasons for why PR firefights are ended quickly even ARMA hasn't recreated that.

man id love sway on the guns would slow down the firefights a bit , guns r to accurate IMO, but this has been discussed b4 ...

has any 1 got any ideas to slow down the firefights ?

I've had moments like that on Fallujah and on Helmand where there have been far more realistic firefights. The problem is the BF2 engine
No weapon sway, no leaning, no dynamic interpretation of cover. In any firefight a huge amount of your body is exposed even when using cover whereas in reality all you would see is the head above the nose and the weapon which at 100+m would be a difficult shot to hit accurately compared to centre mass.

And PRM has RPGs and grenades by the billion, so a firefight is like wandering through a cluster bomb explosion

gazzthompson wrote:has any 1 got any ideas to slow down the firefights ?

1. Force squads to stick together ALL the time as opposed to the voluntary current situation (infantry allowed to move no further than 20m from squad leaders - visual and audio warning prompt when they do)
2. When there is a casualty, the squad must retreat to a rally point and the squad leader must request the player then respawn to simulate carrying the injured to safety and evacuation. Otherwise the dead player must respawn at main base.

That imo would go a long way to changing the manic run-run, gun-gun mentality in the game. Hence not going to be popular at all.

forcing players to stick by the squad leader would kill tactics, there wouldn't be the possibility to use fireteams in the same squad to cover whilst another flanks which would be counter productive probably encouraging players not to squad up on small maps and use TS to communicate thus excluding a number of players from actual teamplay

$kelet0r wrote:1. Force squads to stick together ALL the time as opposed to the voluntary current situation (infantry allowed to move no further than 20m from squad leaders - visual and audio warning prompt when they do)
2. When there is a casualty, the squad must retreat to a rally point and the squad leader must request the player then respawn to simulate carrying the injured to safety and evacuation. Otherwise the dead player must respawn at main base.

That imo would go a long way to changing the manic run-run, gun-gun mentality in the game. Hence not going to be popular at all.

^^ but the one who died couldn't spawn in the main base. Because then he would have no chance to get to his squad quickly. In which case he would suffer the punishment from not being close to his squad.

What I think would slow firefights down:
longer respawn times
longer distances (coming)
and something else that would make players want to stay alive

As long as players don't really care if they die or not the game is going to be very fast. (fights ending quickly, situations changing constantly etc.)

One reason for the low duration of firefights is the poor usage of cover. What I mean by that is that to fire your gun, you have to expose more than half of your body, while in real life, you can just lean but that, I believe, is not possible to code.
Why do people jump out of cover? Well people respawn in the game, while in real life, single player run and gun shooters, you can kill most of the enemy from a distance. So in most cases, when you're forced into a bottleneck or have to few teammates to flank, you have to take the chance and either overrun the enemy or advance to new positions to get the job done. Most times, it ends in failure due to bad timing.
I know a way to stop this from happening: when you die, the game plants a worm on your computer or closes the game and starts defraggin'

com_kieffer wrote:forcing players to stick by the squad leader would kill tactics, there wouldn't be the possibility to use fireteams in the same squad to cover whilst another flanks which would be counter productive probably encouraging players not to squad up on small maps and use TS to communicate thus excluding a number of players from actual teamplay

completely disagree, this game should be all about squad cohesion. For fireteam tactics, you coordinate with another squad - blame BF2 that voip is hardcoded. But your 4-6 man should never be more than a few metres apart at any time for ANY reason.

mammikoura wrote:but the one who died couldn't spawn in the main base. Because then he would have no chance to get to his squad quickly. In which case he would suffer the punishment from not being close to his squad.

His first task when he respawns should be to rejoin his squad and nothing else. I would enforce this by punishing the player to score no points at all while outside the squad leader radius. Meaning = you can still lone wolf or split a squad into an inpromptu fireteam but you will get no reward for it.

Like I said, it's not going to be a popular idea. I like it a lot though.

Or, when you die, your account locks, and to play again you have to either buy BF2 again or pay the server!

But your 4-6 man should never be more than a few metres apart at any time for ANY reason.

One grenade....six kills!!!! PwNagE!1!!

In paintball/airsoft engagements are over pretty quickly with lots of "dead" too. I think this has the most to do with people not being afraid of getting shot.

Americas Army had some longer firefights - but if you died you have to wait out the rest of the round. I don't think anyone wants to do that, personally I hated it.

Incidentally, if anything, I'd exect gun sway to speed up firefights since the reduced accuracy just creates an increased incentive to dash in close for the kill.

1 life per server, Once you die, you can't join that server again

vanity wrote:Americas Army had some longer firefights - but if you died you have to wait out the rest of the round. I don't think anyone wants to do that, personally I hated it.

That's one of the reasons. People don't wanna die so that they end up spectating for the rest of the round, so they sit back and... spectate from their position. Though I agree, I hate round systems (which wouldn't work in BF2 anyway).

Also, AA has weapon sway, leaning, a movement system that encourages firing from behind cover, and a suppression system that makes it incredibly hard to return fire when being fired upon. None of that stuff is fully implementable on the BF2 engine, AFAIK.

I went for no because it depends entirely upon the situation.

Rambo Hunter wrote:1 life per server, Once you die, you can't join that server again

Not a chance.

Its only over quickly because the old fad of seeing someone, spamming teh prone position, and shooting before your body hits the floor and getting a head shot! Much longer animations between weapon switching, positions (crouch/prone etc), forced lighting settings etc would all slow things down.